For clarity, I have decided to call this post ‘artillery’ rather than anything trendy like joint fires or air land integration.
Artillery has had a mini renaissance in Afghanistan with the continuing and increasing use of GMLRS, the 70km sniper, 105mm and even the humble mortar. With likely future conflicts taking place over a wider area there is a trend for greater range.
Man Portable Mortars
Although not artillery in the traditional sense, they are in the infantry not Royal Artillery, mortars remain a wickedly effective and versatile weapon. Whether being used to suppress, nuetralise or provide smoke and illumination their greatest attributes are simplicity, speed of reaction and portability.
The venerable 51mm mortar has now been replaced with a Hirtenberger 60mm obtained under UOR and is providing a valuable improvement over the 51mm, even if it is a little heavier. This should be bought into the main equipment programme and provides an invaluable compliment to the 40mm UGL.
The L16 81mm Mortar, in service with infantry battalions since 1956, has now upgraded to the A2 model that provides a number of improvements including a new Target Locating Equipment (TLE) package. The only other improvement I would like to see is the introduction of a multi fuse for 81mm bombs like the L3 M734 or Junghans PX581 which uses optical technology to reduce costs and eliminate the threat of fuse jammers. In most mortar missions its dispersion is a positive advantage and whilst a more accurate mortar round would be useful, I would doubt the value for money. Logistics are the real problem with mortars, they demand a great deal of support, a standard pallet for example would have over 120x 81mm bombs but only 60 odd for a 120mm so despite the many calls to upgrade infantry mortars to the 120mm their lower speed of deployment and significant logistics overhead quickly diminishes any advantage they might have.
Vehicle Mounted Mortars
In a modern conflict, where counter mortar radar will be in use, simply plugging away with mortars from a fixed location will be a very dangerous pastime, vehicle mounting a mortar is used to support rapid fire and move missions.
The UK also uses the 81mm L16 in this role, fitted to Bulldog armoured personnel carriers although they can also be used in a dismounted mode.
In the vehicle mounted role, the heavier weight of 120mm bombs are arguably less of an disadvantage, a vehicle can carry the extra weight and manage the increased recoil forces. Being vehicular borne also lessens the logistics problems although of course, the underlying issues remain. Many argue that 120mm mortars are simply poor mans artillery but providing infantry or armoured infantry with a more lethal system, retained within its organic chain of command would be valuable.
If we accept the argument that 120mm in the vehicular role is worth pursuing then the choice of available weapons is the next argument.
There are a number of systems on the market, from the traditional towed systems to modern automatic loading devices and all points in between.
At the high end is the AMOS twin barreled and NEMO single barreled systems, but these are complex and expensive, although the direct fire capability might offset these.
To keep things simple, the two systems I think worth considering are the Soltam CARDOM and the STE SRAMS.
The CARDOM is battle proven and is in service with a number of nations but we would have to get over the objections of the yoghurt knitting class and buy from Israel. Although the SRAMS looks very interesting the CARDOM has a number of very useful innovations like the ability to quickly dismount, automated rapid fire control and can even use an interchangeable 81mm barrel. The interchangeable barrel improves versatility and eases logistics problems, which as we have said, will be greater than with an 81mm system. In the lighter brigades it could be mounted on 4×4 or 6×6 vehicles like the Ocelot or Jackal and in the medium weight brigades, a mix of FRES SV or whatever wheeled vehicle is chosen.
If we are to buy into this type of system, we should absolutely make sure they remain with the Infantry.
Guns
The 105mm L118 Light Gun has seen widespread service with the UK and many other armed forces. Its apparent simplicity belies its sophistication and superlative design, the 105mm Light Gun, like the 81mm mortar, derives its effectiveness from its rate of fire, portability and speed of operation, with the addition of accuracy. Weighing less than 2 tonnes, it can be lifted into position by many helicopters, towed by a range of light vehicles (including the new Wolfhound Tactical Support Vehicle) and in extremis, moved by hand. The famous Roshan Dragon story from the MoD shows just how versatile and portable the Light Gun can be and the effectiveness, even in rather old fashioned direct fire mode, is not in doubt.
With the relatively recent mid life upgrade the Light Gun has many effective years left in it, in service with three regiments.
The self propelled AS90 is another brilliant system, rumour has it the design spec was less than 2 sheets of paper and the contract awarded in double quick time. Despite being a bit long in the tooth it is still an effective weapon but the lack of precision/insensitive natures and shorter range than many comparable systems means it is ripe for investment. This is unlikely to happen though and it could be argued that other systems have eclipsed it.
Some of the AS90 regiments have re roled to Light Gun for Afghanistan but AS90 officially it equips 5 field regiments (1 RHA, 3 RHA, 4 RA, 19 RA, 26 RA) and in order to realise short term savings we should consider reducing this to 1 regular regiment and 1 TA, a significant reduction but these are tough times. With 1 regular and 1 TA regiment we still retain a core of this very useful system and the ability to regenerate should we need to.
In the medium term and with whats left, we might have another go at upgrading to a 52calibre barrel, introduce insensitive and guided rounds but this would not be a high priority and the cost would have to be spread across a small number of systems, making it not cost efficient. The US Excalibeer rounds have already been trialled on the AS90.
A more radical medium term solution might be to withdraw AS90 completely and replace it with one of the many 155mm wheeled or lightweight systems on the market. The cost of operating 155mm weapons on a tracked and armoured chassis is considerable, a wheeled system not only radically reduces cost but also results in greater strategic mobility by road and air (air transport by C130/A400 instead of C17 for example)
For years the Royal Artillery have been itching to get their hands on the BAe M777 155mm Ultra Lightweight Field Howitzer, as sold to the US and created the Lightweight Mobile Artillery Weapon System (LIMAWS) programme to equip the proposed medium weight FRES brigades. LIMAWS consisted of a rocket and gun based system, the gun being the M777.
LIMAWS was cancelled in 2007 but it is worth having another look at as a medium term replacement for AS90, maybe taking elements of the long term programme to replace the AS90 and Light Gun post 2020 called FIFS.
In addition to the Supacat HMT Portee system the NEXTER truck based CAmion Equipé d’un Système d’ARtillerie (CAESAR) was also trialled for the requirement but since then other systems have come onto the market including the BAe Archer, Soltam ATMOS and Denel T5. Using 52 cal barrels they all have significantly greater range than the in service AS90 (especially the Denel) and can use the various NATO standard extended range and guided munitions. Although the Archer is sophisticated it is expensive, a truck mounted systems might be more appropriate.
We might buy off the shelf or combine the M777 and a MAN SV medium mobility truck, this is should not be a complex engineering challenge
In the short term then, we should reduce our AS90 regiments significantly and in the medium term, replace them with a truck based 155mm system.
Rockets
Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) was proven in the Gulf War but with the introduction of the cluster bomb treaty, its future was uncertain. The systems were subsequently upgraded to accept the guided rocket, GMLRS. These have gone on to perform sterling service in Afghanistan where they are nicknamed the 70km sniper because of their extreme range and hyper accuracy, they have even been used to drop into a large well that was being used by the enemy.
The armoured chassis weighs in at about 27 tonnes and is tracked which means strategic mobility is limited but the twin launcher means they can deliver a massive weight of very accurate fire, as the video below
The rocket version of LIMAWS was also designed to equip the medium weight brigades and was very similar in concept to the US HIMARS with a single launcher on a very lightweight Supacat HMT chassis that kept the whole system below 9 tonnes, to allow sling loading by a Chinook. Given the range of GMLRS it is difficult to see the value in making the system this lightweight, with the additions of the whole range of theatre entry specification it would be very difficult to achieve this in practice so in order to achieve some commonality with the future 155mm gun system it should be mounted on the same Support Vehicle truck chassis.
Rather than create a wheeled vehicle based system where the weapon and transport are one and the same we should create a common modular launch system, based of course on a 20ft ISO container, that can be carried on a variety of flat bed or DROPS vehicles and even naval vessels like the Think Defence C3 concept.
This container becomes hugely strategically mobile, extremely flexible and can be used for a variety of weapon systems by merely swapping the payload.
Payloads could be the existing 6 pack GMLRS, Fire Shadow, CAMM or other future systems.
Whilst I am on the subject of the Fire Shadow loitering munition, I am not convinced and would consider cancellation.
Apart from the air mobile and amphibious units, the Royal Artillery will then largely go to work in the same vehicle, regardless of system to provide obvious logistics, maintenance and training benefits.
To reduce reliance on Storm Shadow and Strike Fighters (F35 and Typhoon) for deep strike we might also consider the value of buying the Lockheed Martin ATACMS tactical rocket. This would of course stray into inter service politics but when compared to the alternatives is actually extremely cost effective. If we can break out of the inter service rivalry and stovepiped thinking that characterises much of our procurement decisions we could provide the Royal Artillery with a serious deep strike system and allow cost savings to be made elsewhere, elsewhere being the Typhoon and JCA fleets.
At just under 300km range the ATACMS missile compares favorably with the range of the Storm Shadow, can even be fitted with the same BROACH warhead as Storm Shadow and costs less than $0.75million each.
What’s not to like.
As a justification for CVF/JCA we keep hearing that the majority of the worlds population is within 100km of the shoreline. Putting an ATACMS module on a Royal Navy vessel sitting 100km offshore puts them within easy reach, of course I am not suggesting ATACMS can replace CVF/JCA but it is food for thought and worth considering as part of the force mix.
GMLRS, Storm Shadow, ATACMS and submarine launched Tomahawk are overlapping and complimentary but taken together, would be a powerful capability and if we can achieve some commonality with naval mounting of the GMLRS and ATACMS then the overall costs can also be managed.
Other Systems
I will cover air defence in a future post and in a previous post UAV’s have been discussed
MSTAR, MAMBA and COBRA should be retained as is, counter artillery is a very complex task that is about much more than technology
Summary
This is not a particularly revolutionary proposal but takes existing systems and applies selected enhancements whilst reducing the number of heavily armoured systems to improve strategic mobility and reduce cost.
Organisationally, we also need to resolve ongoing cap badge and service rivalry in the delivery of indirect weapons and their supporting services, ISR and UAV’s being the primary source of these disagreements that make the argument over who controls mortars look tame in comparison.
As the cost of providing close air support and deep strike from aircraft rises the lower cost of artillery starts looks increasingly attractive. A series of overlapping layers provides a cost effective means of reducing the need for expensive air delivered strike/CAS.
Note I said reduce, not replace.
Short Term
- Obtain new proximity fuse for the 81mm mortar
- Bring the 60mm mortar into the main equipment programme
- Retain 81mm in man portable and vehicle mounted role
- Retain 105mm Light Gun at 3 regiments in the light role
- Disband 4 regular AS90 regiments and transfer 1 Regiments worth of systems to the TA
- Retain GMLRS at existing level
- Cancel Fire Shadow
Medium Term
- Introduce 120mm vehicle mounted mortar
- Withdraw AS90
- Introduce truck based 155mm system
- Consider guided 155mm ammunition
- Develop common weapon container and modules for land and naval use
- Transfer GMLRS systems to truck based carriage using common modular payload container
- Invest in ATACMS
I think we should withdraw GLMRS on cost grounds, its what, £100,000 per shot?
Thats getting into silly numbers for an insurgency.
Its got to be cheaper to give each small base its own 81mm and each larger base a 120mm, which is pretty much what your suggesting it seems.
A vehicle mounted system that can swap from 120 to 81 just sounds brilliant, fight a hot war with a 120mm for firepower and COIN with an 81 for logistics.
Is there any possibilty of the thing being turreted and autoloaded?
Or even just enclosed and autoloaded?
Guns are always tricky.
I’m going to be a bit of a rebel and say that, although the light gun is ace, I dont think we need it.
If we’re introducing the 120mm mortar in an infantry and light vehicle roll we have fire support with a range of 7km embedded.
With an AS-90 replacement we’ll have fire support out to 50km available whenever it gets to the battlefield.
In what situation do we need a middle capability?
Yes they did sterling service in the Falklands, but that was simply plugging a hole because we couldnt get a proper gun there.
Certainly the “dragon” of Afghanistan would be rather scarier if it was an AS90
A chinookable GMLRS would fill that gap somewhat, so I wouldnt be too quick to dismiss it, a larger system would probably be better, especially if it could still be deployed, but probably in to sections, by helicopter.
*****
Personal Note, this is why I’m in favour of the largest possible heavy lift helicopter.
It just expands your options so much if you can lift 15tons if required
*****
As for ATACMS, no.
I recently had a similar discussion of Defence and Freedom.
ATACMS on paper compares well with storm shadow, but storm shadow is,
A) a bit rubbish
and
B) wildly overpriced
But even though its a bit rubbish, a Typhoon can fly 1000km, deploy a storm shadow, which can fly another 250km and hit a target, ATACMS can just do 300km.
A better range comparison would be 1250km to 300km.
A better price comparison might be against a JDAM or a Paveway, which are more like $30,000 than $700,000
I’m not against long ranged rocketry onm principle, I quite like it at really long range in a naval setting, where I believe it can replace carriers in the strike role, but the arguement is much less solid on land.
Where would we really use a 300km ranged missile?
Johnny Taliban?
GMLRS is looking cheap now.
Opening days of a Soviet Invasion?
Fair enough, but to pay for them, we’d lose some of our airpower, and with it with cuts to our sustained warmaking capability.
Retaking the Falklands?
Are they even 300kms across?
Without wanting to cross the sanity barrier, in the event of a russian invasion or a french or german expansion most of Europe will be finished fighting in under a month, one way or another.
If it goes badly, the UK could still be fighting a major war months or even years later, and be repelling (or launching) harrasment raids for decades to come.
Sacrificng our ability to defend ourselves for a sustained amount of time, to better defend Germany for a week just isnt a good deal in my view.
You forget that the missiles would take out targets that would otherwise require additional sorties. Aircraft have a rate of attrition, and that one can be quite substantial against a yet unbroken opponent.
It may be that adding a few munitions (not prone to political debates comparable to debates about Typhoon numbers) would save more Typhoons in a hot conflict than you could afford to buy for the same money.
And that doesn’t even take into account that missiles have almost no operating costs in comparison with Typhoon and its well-trained (more than 165 flying hours per year) pilot (or two).
“Where would we really use a 300km ranged missile?”
Exactly where we would need a high-end navy, combined arms-competent brigades and an integrated high-end air force.
The 300 km ranged missile simply turns this into “…well-integrated high-end air force.”.
Sven
“Aircraft have a rate of attrition, and that one can be quite substantial against a yet unbroken opponent.”
I disagree.
The RAF is more than a match for anything it would realisticaly be expected to face on its own, and NATO is more than a match for anything it could expect to face as a coalition.
Ground based air defences are annoying and will require some effort to supress, but they will be suppressed.
Unless theres a possible situation I’m missing.
I dont see why missile numbers would spark any less of a debate than destroyer numbers, Submarine numbers or Typhoon numbers.
They’re expensive and flashy enough to make headlines, and so political capital.
I dont disagree pilots are expensive, I actualy thought it was 20 hours a month, not 14, but considering the extent to which the UK uses its air assets, I dont believe this is an important consideration, for the UK.
I’d be correct in saying a west german pilot didnt fire a shot in anger from 1945 till deployment to the balkans in the early 90′s wouldnt I?
The same cant be said for the RAF, which must have flown tens of thousands of combat missions over that time and since then, very few of which could have been carried out by a missile for less cost, if at all.
“Exactly where we would need a high-end navy, combined arms-competent brigades and an integrated high-end air force.
The 300 km ranged missile simply turns this into “…well-integrated high-end air force.”.”
Sorry I was being literal there, we used a high end navy, competant(at that anyway) army and high end airforce when we invaded Iraq a few years ago.
What would a dozen trucks each firing a dozen missiles have added to the mix, except an extra hundred million dollars of cost?
They wouldnt have added much to Afghanistan or Iraq, or the Balkans, they’d have been useful in the Falklands, but I already want extended range naval weapons.
The only use I can see is in a sovietesque hot war, but I dont believe they’d save more Typhoons than they would cost.
If it all goes badly a Typhoon is much easier to evacuate back home, if it ever bothered to locate to bases in Germany or Poland in the first place.
But, I could be wrong.
No boxing champion thinks that he can learn something from bullying a schoolboy. He doesn’t need great technique for that, does this mean he needs no great technique at all?
What’s the chance that a schoolboy will seriously attack him, instead of just being a loudmouth?
A boxing champion should only care about the defence of his title, not waste his time with bullying of schoolboys and drawing false & stupid boxing conclusions from it.
True “defence” does never happen against clearly inferior opponents. Such fights are offensive fights.
It’s a question of “when”, not “if” a real peer will challenge.
Maybe the champ won’t be as fit then as he’s now, but working on an ever refined technique is worth it anyway.
That’s a very philosophical answer Sven !
you sound like Eric Cantona
Last day in current job, so posting from train on the way in, thus keeping it short:
Admin agree with almost everything except 105mm LG. Retire it. Replace with 155mm M777. Tow behind a Viking for 29Cdo Arty Rgt, sling it under Chinook for 7RHA in 16 air Asslt Bde. Based on intro of 120mm mortars to Inf.
Convert AS90 regiments to M777,supacat Portee if affordable, for yr required C17 / amphib strategic mobility.
Convert the 4 LG equipped TA field regiments to AS90, thus keeping 5 in total. Invest in 52 calibre canon and modern ammo.
Behind this particular article is some kind of tacit acknowledgement that Liam Fox is right when he says we can’t afford to fund all of Britain’s defence commitments. I don’t think he’s right at all: the armed forces have already been cut to the bone. Further depletion of capabilities mean that our defence expenditure is likely to fall well behind that of our European allies, when we have many more important national interests to protect. There are some things we have to pay for, like it or not, and defence is one of them.
I am rapidly beginning to realise that Dr Fox is much more concerned with furthering his own political career than securing the future defence of this country.
The point i want to make is that we cannot surrender a conventional military capability and dumb-down our forces because of the type of threat Afghanistan poses. How many times does it need to be said, we must prepare for the next war not the last one. That means having highly flexible state-of-the-art equipment that gives us an edge over any conventional army in most straight head-to-head combat scenarios.
The threat Iran poses is real. They have a serious amount of tanks, artillery and infantry. They also have a sizeable air force and anti-aircraft systems. We need a properly equipped armoured division, although it doesn’t need to be based in Germany.
We need this not so much so that we can take place alongside the USA in any future conflict, but so that we can properly partner our EU allies. Whatever the merits of the USA-UK special relationship, the geographic reality of our situation is that we’re members of the United States of Europe first. We must not forget that, because this is fundamental part of securing our basic borders from any outside aggressor.
To protect other interests, we also need a rapidly deployable light division comprised of marines (for sea deployment) and paras (for air transportable) and wheeled-vehicle armoured infantry (for rapid overland deployment). Most of the equipment choices being discussed here relate to the second light division. Wheeled or towed artillery would be fine, but not at the expense of a proper armoured capability.
I do agree with in principle Nicholas but I think we have had this discussion before, do we accept reality or fight for what we deep down know is right.
It would be great if we could do as you say but the world is changing and the coffers are empty, Think Defence is not King Canute so all we can do is try and discuss credible and sensible ideas that reflect realities with one eye on hoping for more.
The main change I offer in this post is lightening the protection to improve strategic mobility of weapons that have ranges in excess of 50km, create a common mounting platform for the future and supplement deep strike capabilities to lighten the load on increasingly expensive and diminishing air resources
I read the Telegraph article with Liam Fox, it’s pretty depressing stuff and we all know the next review is going to be nothing more than a slash and burn with a light sprinkling of new toys/innovation to sweeten the pill, exactly the same as all the other reviews we have had
Sven, going by the standards of the today’s youth, the schoolboy won’t get in the ring, he’ll sneak up behind your champion and stick him in the back with a carving knife while he’s picking up his morning papers!
ATACMS seems a bit like overkill to me, wouldn’t an extended range GMLRS be good enough. Lockheed Martin demonstrated a GMLRS going out to 92km (probably with a reduced warhead).
Also if Fire Shadow were hypothetically the same cost as a GMLRS, I’d want some of that goodness, be very useful for things like convoy protection
Moving from 105mm to M777 would worry me from a logistics point of view due to the extra resources necessary to re-supply ammunition
Finally any thoughts on the now cancelled US NLOS program, sounded like a neat idea: box launches on trucks and ships, in fact like whats proposed for CAMM…what about co-packing NLOS style missiles in CAMM. Probably a stupid idea but thought I’d just get it out there.
If the Army, RN and RAF actually talked to each other instead of bickering over a diminishing set of crumbs they would realise something like ATACMS would benefit all three. The RN gets a containerised deep strike weapon from all manner of surface vessels, the RAF gets something that can do SEAD/DEAD thus allowing them to concentrate on strike/CAS missions where their capabilities are most valuable and the Army get an all weather, day and night means of operating across a much broader, less dense battlespace i.e. precisely the kind of environment it is most likely to be operating in.
I still remain to be convinced even on the Fire Shadow concept and wonder if a combination of already in service assets if cleverly combined could do a better job.I just don’t like the idea of launching very hi tec kit into the air and having to drive it into the ground for all and sundry to pick up. Not sure how ROE would work with it and how long it can stay in the air, convoys take days not hours.
Agree on the 105mm v 155mm argument although there are counter arguments that say for weight delivered the 155mm is more efficient. I think in a portable role you lose the speed of the 105mm and ammunition supply becomes a big problem when you want to have a mix of HE, smoke, illum etc
NLOS, love the concept and it fits right in with my idea for a containerised flexible payload module that can be rapidly switched between vehicles, small boats and ships. The Israelis have mastered it with their Jumper system which seems to me to be a smaller GMLRS, again, what’s not to like
Ref: “Agree on the 105mm v 155mm argument although there are counter arguments that say for weight delivered the 155mm is more efficient. I think in a portable role you lose the speed of the 105mm and ammunition supply becomes a big problem when you want to have a mix of HE, smoke, illum etc”
Thats why I said I support this only in the light of more pocket artillery with the infantry – your vehicle mounted 120mm.
If we are talking about Brigade / Division level artillery being lighter and more strategically transportable than AS90, i.e. a Portee or towed M777, then I really think we have to stop worrying about the difference in logistics between 105mm and 155mm !
I support your assertion of the all round good egg and snappy dresser that is ATACMS,
but ref: “The RN gets a containerised deep strike weapon from all manner of surface vessels”
Even the USN failed to get NTACMS into service via MK41 (SL) VLS, but a MLRS launcher tied down in the upper deck cargo area of a Bay class could be used to launch ATACMS for deep strike from over the maritime horizon ?
You know I am obsessed with ISO containers, they could strap one down on the deck of a Bay, CVF, River or anything else, why not an LCVP even!!
I have a sneaky feeling the USN kind of failed on purpose with the naval GMLRS and NTACMS because the old politics and industrial concerns hove into view
Come on, its a tubular think that spits out swirly hot gas, exactly the same as other missiles, not sure what the actual real challenges are when you get over the inter service politics and threats to other sexier programmes
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1995/02/22/27857/ship-launched-atacm.html
@admin:
“Agree on the 105mm v 155mm argument although there are counter arguments that say for weight delivered the 155mm is more efficient.”
155mm is obviously more effective in a 1:1 comparison of grenades, but one 155mm (40 kg) HE shell cannot ceteris paribus beat two 105mm (18 kg) HE shells in fragmentation effect.
Smaller calibres are more weight efficient with HE due to geometrical, physical reasons. That’s why cluster cargo munitions (external ballistics of a large calibre + many small frag bomblets) were such a success.
The large calibres succeeded through superior range and superior cargo rounds (cluster munitions).
Blast effect on buildings and crater depth are nowadays unimportant advantages of larger calibre.
Admin,
Mortars – I agree with almost everything you say about both types: infantry and vehicle-mounted.
AS90 – I agree with the idea of reducing AS90 regiments but not too drastically. We have to remember that we have fought two high-intensity wars (Gulf Wars 1 and 2) in fairly recent times and that probably more will follow. I agree with everything that Nicholas has to say in respect of keeping conventional capability. The AS90 has the advantage of heavy armour to withstand counter-battery fire. So keep 3 regiments of them, all with the regular Army. This is not meant to denigrate the TA, but with their present difficulties over funding, numbers, etc. could they cope with a highly complex system like the AS90? (On the other hand, I suppose they have done it with MLRS for many years). The gun is not all that old, having come into service in the mid-1990s but could benefit from upgrading to 52 calibre.
Towed/Wheeled systems – Yes, the Royal Artillery has hankered after M777 for a long time now and, as you say, “we might combine the M777 and a MAN SV medium mobility truck. This is should not be a complex engineering challenge.”
I think the M777 is highly desirable but one possible disadvantage might be that while it is liftable by a Chinook, it is not by a Merlin (or so I am given to understand). Not good for our Royal Marines, then. Perhaps keep a few 105 mm Light Guns as well?
Fire Shadow – Regarding your point about expensive kit (sensors, etc.) being lost when it crashes into the ground, and using armed UAVs instead. Isn’t it the case that most UAVs that are capable of carrying quite heavy armament also require a runway from which to operate? Fire Shadow, being fired from a truck, would not need that.
Moreover, in the kind of counter-insurgency campaign we have been involved in over recent years, there is a need for a weapon that is surgically precise in order to reduce collateral damage. Fire Shadow and similar loitering munitions systems are fired at the optimum moment and are therefore capable of achieving that. Fire Shadow is capable of loitering for 10 hours, is an all-weather system and can be targeted by an ISTAR capability such as Watchkeeper. The intention, I believe, is to fire it in salvos, so that several can be in the air at one time in order to engage multiple targets.
some thoughts of my own (bear in mind it’s becks friday). Scanning through the channels last night found quest on freeview is now showing future weapons (good to see someone enthusiastic unlike Mr whinge pants page). However they did show the US artillery firing the excalibur round, pretty impressive when it corrected itself from being fired 15 degrees of kilter to land 2 yards away from it’s target.Downside is i think he said it was an expensive round.
Right now for the becks induced thought, a while back, adders (as his mates call him!) suggested re-turreting chally 2 with the marksman turret for AA, however would it not be better to do this to the AS90, lighter chassis,bigger turret with the design making it easier to bomb up again using the rear doors, even just re-roling one lot into a TA regt might be a good idea.
Slipping into flak jacket now awaiting responses!!!
Mike W – Wikipedia sugggests Merlin can handle M777 just fine:
M777 weighs in at 3,175kg
Merlin underslung details: “A cargo hook under the fuselage can carry external loads of 5,440 kg”
Plenty of margin there to carry the M777 crew, with second Merlin carrying underslung ammo (say approx. 43kg per shell, say the same for the propellant charge = 60 rounds)
Admittedly with only 26 Merlin HC3/3A to be available for RM support, it would take all the Merlins to lift a full battery ! Better take a few Chinooks along to……
Jed, thanks for the reply. It’s good news about the underslung load carrying capacity of the Merlin if M777 ever goes into service and if Wikipedia is right (it has been fallible on more than a few occasions).
On a more general point, one of the reasons that the acquisition of SP wheeled artillery (rather than towed guns) might be advantageous is the ability to “shoot ‘n scoot”. I believe that the Archer system, for example, can be out of action in under 30 seconds, whereas the time for a towed system is about 2 minutes. Quite a difference and could save quite a few casualties.
“(say approx. 43kg per shell, say the same for the propellant charge = 60 rounds)”
The propellant weights far, far less than the shell.
You need to add the weight of the pallet and some other stuff, though. Gun crew, security element and their kit.
The M777 has a serious disadvantage that should not be tolerated any more: It cannot execute firing missions quickly. It has a traverse of only 400 mil – it takes eight marines and about two minutes (including realignment) to turn it a full 3,200 mil (180°).
Compare this with the 1960′s 122mm D-30 gun-howitzer; full 6,400 mil traverse in a matter of seconds.
you should really compare the D30 to the light gun, not 777.
Different requirements, you would use a 122 or 105mm weapon in direct fire mode where traverse speed is important, unlike the 155mm, very unlikely to be used the same way.
What about using a guided version of a smaller MRL like the Israeli LAR-160 or Denel Valkiri (based on the BM-21 Grad) on either a lighter chassis or fired from standard-sized MRLS pods?
Instead of a 70km sniper rifle, it could be a more numerous, 36-45km sniper rile.
You don’t always need a 90kg-class warhead. An accurate, 45kg warhead should still be enough for many situations.
good point, but I was trying to keep systems to a minimum, perhaps something that could fit into an MLRS launch pack but with a smaller warhead and motor
For smaller rockets, would the Lockheed P44 be a possible solution? You get 10 to a standard MLRS pod.
I did see something about a capability to fire AMRAAM from the MLRS pod too.
If funding were to be made available at some time in the future for a truck-mounted or towed 155 mm system, I assume that two of the main candidates would be the M777 and the FH77 (either towed or as part of the Archer SP system), both guns being produced by BAE.
Has anyone any ideas about which is the better gun? I was thinking in terms of across-the-range capabilities: e.g. strategic and tactical mobility, range, rate-of-fire, survivability, etc. I have never seen the two weapons compared.
“…in direct fire mode where traverse speed is important…”
Traverse speed is generally important. Few firing missions can be pre-planned. Most often the forward observer wants effect on target asap. You can forget about many firing missions if the gun crew takes almost two minutes longer than necessary.
The small opening angle of the traverse (without turning the whole gun) furthermore leads to a positioning of the gun far in the “rear”. The greater the firing distance, the more width you get with a certain angle.
A positioning of the gun farther to the “rear” equals wasting some range and increased propellant consumption, reduced barrel life. It adds up – especially for a 39cal gun that was not built for max. endurance or max. range.
I dont think anyone would disagree that having speed in anything is important but traverse speed can be compensated for in many ways, a gun is unlikely to be operating in isolation and complex ROE, especially air land integration issues with all sorts of things in the air to manage (UAV,s helicopters, aircraft etc) means that when taken in the round it becomes less of a problem. The kind f extreme rapid response missions are usually by infantry mortars to support breaking contact or to shape a response from the enemy.
Not saying it isnt an issue for 155mm but is not a massive issue and in actual operations becomes even less of an issue
The 70km+ range makes P44 is an interesting possibility. I’d like to see a cheaper, GPS-only variant.
P44 has a rather small warhead though, so GPS-only guidance might not be good enough.
I wonder if you could adapt P44 (or LAR-160) for the SL-AMRAAM launcher? Six 70km sniper shots per HMMWV or medium truck isn’t a lot, but would be easier to distribute over a large geographical area. And if you were buying SLAMRAAM anyway, it would give those vehicles something to do when there wasn’t a need for air defense.
There is a down-rated version of the P44 called the P42. It has GPS/INS and SAL so it can be used on mobile targets as long as you have a spotter.
Some points that struck me.
Firstly, DominicJ said, “If we’re introducing the 120mm mortar in an infantry and light vehicle roll we have fire support with a range of 7km embedded.”
I’m not sure this works because of the manpower issue. The infantry are already in short supply and taking some of them away to man mortars to do a job which, in theory at least, is currently done by the RA with 105mm light guns may not be acceptable.
and, on the 105mm light gun he also said, “Yes they did sterling service in the Falklands, but that was simply plugging a hole because we couldnt get a proper gun there.”
Which is a good argument for keeping them around – they can be sent to places you can’t send anything bigger.
Next, Admin commented, “If the Army, RN and RAF actually talked to each other instead of bickering over a diminishing set of crumbs ”
OK, get rid of the RAF completely. It exists as a support arm for the Army anyway. It has no strategic function anymore so is it required as an independent force? Tactical transports and helicopters are used to move the army around anyway so expand the AAC to take them on. Why not go one further and get rid of all three services? I bet the USMC is bigger than the entire RN, RAF and army put together so why not reorganise the three services as one?
Hells teeth, I think I’ll have to go and lie down in a darkened room for a while now . . .
pete
my point re portability was more that it would be better to fix the movement issue than build a weapons platform around it.
Manpower is always an issue, but if the RA is no longer operating 105s it has men spare to man 120s.
Merging is a tricky issue, single forces still have partisanship, the IDF for example had a fighter pilot in charge recently, who argued brigade level army warfare was a thing of the past and cut its funding, leading to the 2006 debacle.
I think the usmc is a bit smaller than the british armed forces, it runs better, but its not a round force and still has issues.
It isnt responsible for asw and is reliant on none existant naval fire support for much of its activity, not to mention the insane decision to only operate the v22.
No amount of mod reorganisation can alter what is a political problem, weak leadership and ignorance.
Dominic, I wasn’t really suggesting that the UK armed forces should be remodelled on the USMC, just making the point that a single, unified service can operate aircraft, ships and tanks without the world coming to an end. Suggest that the AAC should fly anything bigger than a piper cub to the RAF and they begin to make snorting noises and, once they’ve calmed down a bit, claim that army personel are in some way impossible to train in the use of anything more complex than a rifle and a shovel.
I think that three large, multi-purpose ships similar to the Wasp class would be better for the UK than the two planned carriers. I think Harrier III should be built because I think that supersonic performance is unnecessary (I also think that stealth may be a dead end but we’ll wait and see on that one . . .)
I think that FRES is not going to give the UK army what it wants or, indeed, needs. I think the RAF probably could be disbanded in favour of an expanded Fleet Air Arm and Army Air Corps but, of course, what I think is totally irrelevant and will make no difference to anything!
Fun talking about it though . . .
Pete
Appologies, sometimes I come off as a bit snappy, its not intentional.
I’m odd in that I think the AAC should take over the chinook (and other transport assets) but should lose control of the Apache fleet.
The USMC is in its own ways just as limited as every other service.
Wars are complicated, theres many ways to skin a cat and we are only human.
We either allow duplications like the RAF Reg and Royal Marines or miss things like logistics convoy protection.
I didn’t detect snappiness . . .
Reorganising the UK armed forces would be difficult in the extreme – just look at the fuss there was over the changes in the scottish regiments and imagine restructuring the entire army, navy and airforce! Doesn’t bare thinking about, really, and yet I feel that something radical genuinely needs to be done.
If anyone’s interested, there’s a good transcript of an interview wih Dr Fox from Farnborough on
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4722816&c=FEA&s=INT
Munitions are the key to fire support not what fires them.
The advantage of the 120mm mortar over the 81mm is not in the anti-personnel role (suppression) but becuase it wil soon be able to fire PGMs (US or Israeli) against point targets like bunkers, crew served weapons & buildings. A secondary anti armour role is also possible with a SMArT type SFW or STRIX. To be more effective in the AP role it needs a proximity fuze for airburst or preferably a directed air burst round like the Rheinmetall AAA 35mm.
155mm’s major advantage over 105mm, apart from range, is its PGM capability with Excalibur. But Excalibur is more expensive than GMLRS & has much less range. Is the Diehl SMArt SFW round on order for AS90 ever likely to be used?
GMLRS needs a smaller warhead option for use in COIN.
Fire Shadow could be (or have been)specified to be recoverable by parachute (as are some small UAVs)if not required on target. It could then be refuelled & relaunched. The value & cost effectiveness of loitering munitions is likely to be confirmed only by use in combat, not by simulations or range trials.